Archive for February 12th, 2013

By the way, for any of you hankering to move to Australia, don’t rush. They have been having a massive influx of Muslim “refugees” and “asylum seekers” in recent years inspiring much political turmoil (see our category on Australia, here, with 89 previous posts).

However, Aussies, including this Sri Lankan man leading the new party, don’t seem to have been as intimidated by the PC Speech Police as have most Americans! (nor have the journalists reporting the story!).

A Sri Lankan migrant has launched a political party that runs on an anti-multiculturalism platform.

Rise Up Australia already boasts about 1,500 members and plans to run 65 candidates in the upcoming federal election.

“Rise Up Australia Party, which is committed to keeping Australia for Australians, is utterly and completely opposed to multiculturalism,” says Rise Up Australia’s founder Daniel Nalliah.

The Sri Lankan-born pastor draws on his own migrant past in defence of assimilation.

His message has the backing of international figures. “If you come here, then follow Pastor Danny’s example and enjoy it and celebrate it and do not seek to destroy it,” says Christopher Monckton from the UK Independence Party.

The leader of the new party has come under fire in the past for anti-Islamic comments, but he wasn’t backing away from making controversial statements again today.

“True Muslims are radicals, unfortunately. If they practice the Koran, they’re radicals,” he said.

If elected, Rise Up wants to restrict the number of Muslims calling Australia ‘home’.

The party has 1,500 supporters across the country, and is putting forward 52 candidates in the Lower House and a dozen in the Senate in the upcoming federal election.

Many of the supporters are concerned about what they claim is the “Islamification of Australia”.

“If we’re not careful, we’re going to lose this country,” said a supporter. “I don’t want to see Sharia Law in Australia,” said another.

Today, writing at NRO, Karen Lugo (hat tip: Paul) alerts us to more in the on-going battle of ideas on the subject of freedom of speech. Islamists want to stop free thinkers from using the word “Islamist!”

And, look who is leading the world community to silence critics of Jihad and Shariah law—-that supposedly great example of a moderate Muslim country—Turkey!

In just the latest episode of censorship in the prophet’s name, Muslim activist groups now want reporters to stop using the word “Islamist.” “Islamist” is an important and useful word — it identifies the politically motivated Muslims who are intent on injecting sharia into Western law and culture, and distinguishes them from other followers of Islam.

There is no question that sharia is anathema to the American sense of individual liberty and civil rights, so actual Islamists must hide behind Muslims who have no interest in bringing Muslim Brotherhood–style regulations to America. Uninhibited discussions of the conditions in Western Europe’s sharia enclaves evoke instant rejection of similar arrangements here in the U.S. Thus, the conversation must be stripped of frank terms such as “Islamist.” Those who seek to promote sharia are anxious to bypass debate on the matter on the way to cultural domination.

Don’t we know some Marylanders who went on an indoctrination trip to Turkey?

Islamists certainly do not want the American public to consider the current international campaign to make inspection of Islamism a crime. In January, journalists and journalism students were invited to a conference in Istanbul where Turkish deputy undersecretary Ibrahim Kalin announced that the Turkish government “has been working on projects to have Islamophobia recognized as a crime against humanity.”Prime Minister Erdogan committed the Turkish government to “immediately start working on legislation against blasphemous and offensive remarks” and bragged that “Turkey could be a leading example for the rest of the world on this.”

Update: Richard Falknor at Blue Ridge Forum reports that there are lists of elected officials who went on Gulen sponsored trips to Turkey, here is one such list. I don’t know if the journalists were also sponsored by the Gulen movement.

We need to be able to freely use the word “Islamist” so as not to lump all Muslims in with the Shariah law agitators like say, Grover Norquist (who says you are all a bunch of “Islamophobes” if you question shariah law!):

Quietly working within the US government to silence us:

So far, America’s institutions have chosen to defer the moment that the culture must be defined and defended. Islamists have stepped into the void. For instance, at Islamists’ behest, the DOJ, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security have purged from counterterrorism manuals references to the connection between Islamic radicalism and jihadist terror. Many city- and county-level agencies have followed suit. If our law-enforcement agencies cannot stand up to the threat, how can we expect the media to?

More than most, Tea Partiers and Liberty-minded advocates and LOL! Tea Party bloggers know the importance of free speech because without this Constitutionally protected pressure release valve the US would turn to chaos and rioting and rebellion to solve the greatest threat we have faced since the founding. Hint to Obama and pals—silence Americans at your great peril.

Lugo concludes:

Caving to demands for speech codes dangerously skews political arguments and makes the voices of the censors only louder. When one side of the argument is censored or restrained, conspirators are allowed to perpetrate a fraud on the majority. This is exactly how Islamists have been selling Americans on the idea that sharia is soft, socially just, and not a threat to the American way. By maligning the use of the word “Islamist” and thereby suppressing inspection of Islamism, sharia advocates hope to dismiss as racist any who would challenge them. [They have free speech too—do not cower when they call you a racist, besides Islam is not a race!—ed]

It is not too late to frame the debate and press American Muslim leaders for honesty. Unapologetic and public conversations are key to defending American constitutional standards, and they demand clarity of terminology.

No one explains this better than Pamela Geller. Coincidentally, just last evening Brad Botwin of Help Save Maryland sent around a clip of a CNN interview with Pamela Geller from a few months ago on this very subject. Watch it!